Ten men are on the ballot to be the next San Diego mayor. Four, former City Attorney Mike Aguirre, Councilman David Alvarez, Councilman Kevin Faulconer and former state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, have regularly polled above at least 5 percent. If no candidate earns 50 percent of the vote today, a runoff between the top two vote getters will be scheduled early next year.

Fletcher, Aguirre, Faulconer and Alvarez filed papers to run, along with a crop of outliers including lawyer Hud Collins and SDSU student Michael Kemmer. Bruce Coons, executive director of the preservationist group Save Our Heritage Organisation, dropped out of the race in early October, while other potential candidates like former City Councilman Carl DeMaio and Interim Mayor Todd Gloria decided not to run.

Aguirre had less campaign contributions and far fewer endorsements than his competitors, but used the campaign to spread his message about the city’s large pension payments.

If no candidate wins the majority of votes today, the top two vote-getters will have to continue momentum over the holidays into the runoff early next year. The winner of that election will serve out the remainder of Filner's term, and then can run for one more term in 2016.

Arrested for wearing a shirt? I guess the left is up to their usual threats and intimidation. They do it each election.

Last year, I saw a guy with an over-sized Obama shirt standing about 20 feet away from a polling area smoking. I drove by an hour later, same guy, he just continued to stand there smoking and watching everyone.

But then its ok if you're the left. If you're the middle or right, they want to see you put in handcuffs and dragged away.

"Arrested for wearing a shirt? I guess the left is up to their usual threats and intimidation."

Why are you clumping NeoGeo's individual comments with "the left" as an entire group? That's a false association.

"If you're the middle or right, they want to see you put in handcuffs and dragged away."

Who said this? How do you know NeoGeo wouldn't have advocated for the arrest of the Obama supporter? You are filling in a lot of blanks here, based on nothing.

Do yourself a favor and don't blur the discussion by slipping in false associations. You're being very deceitful, and for what? To get your point across? If your point had any merit, it would stand on its own and you wouldn't have to sneak it into the discussion.

I can't figure out if you don't understand what you're doing, or if you are trying to do a careful dance to lead the discussion into your arena. Either way, do us all a favor and just stop.

Most leftists feel entitled to preferential treatment. It doesn't even surprise me anymore to see people like Anon11 spouting off generalizations and assumptions about people while berating them for supposedly making generalizations about others.

The leftists care about being politically correct more than anything else. "Progressive" is the new name for communism. So many dopes have been duped into thinking they are part of something new, when it is the same old marxist communism, and they are the same old useful idiots.

How about just vote! Who gives a crap if he's wearing a falconer shirt. Falconer is just as much about swindling the taxpayer as flethcer and alvarez. People get in to politics to get and or stay rich. I will never have the fortune of either but its nice to dream.

I voted absantee for Aguirre and regret it, not because I don't want Mr. Aguirre to be mayor but because he is not in the top3 and I really wish I had voted for Mr. Alvarez since it looks so close between him and Fletcher.

If Alvarez makes it to the runoff, he has my full support and a donation.

If it's between Fletcher and Faulconner I will be extremely disappointed as I don't much care for either one. I suppose, depending on how he conducts himself during te campaign, I could be persuaded to vote for Fletcher as the lesser Of two evils, but I really hopeful that Alvarez makes the runoff and then becomes our new mayor.

What most Americans favor, including myself, is a capitalist society with strong safety nets in place - namely SS, affordable healthcare for all and Medicare for our seniors.

That's not "communism" that's being smart and realizing not one purist ideology has all the answers. Capitalism is great, but capitalism also has flaws. Having a primarily capitalist system with strong social safety bets in place for when capitalism doesn't work is something smart and something I would venture to think most Americans agree with.

This idea that our social safety nets should be widdled away is a major reason Republicans are failing.

Peking_Duck, I too want a capitalistic society with safety nets in place, but I would like those safety nets to be uncomfortable so that people do not linger too long in them, like a nice safety hammock.

We already see people taking advantage of safety nets in this country. More and more people are on welfare, people are saving less for retirement, people are just expecting the government to take care of them so they don't bother to take care of themselves or plan for their future, the education of their children, their retirement, their medical care, and the list goes on.

Well lets be real retirement investing is a sham to make wall street wealthier. So social security is necessary to sustain most people who have been priced out of retirement from a lifetime of being gouged by banks and credit cards. The muddle class has been decimated by fuel and home prices. There isnt enough left at the end of the month anymore.

When I see a person who signs up just to post a single comment calling for someone's arrest, that sends up a red flag."

This has nothing to do with what I asked you. You took one individual's comments and made blanket accusations towards a group of people.

"Sure, this poster might have called for the arrest of someone wearing an Alvarez shirt as well. But from my observations over many years, that is very unlikely."

Your observations don't mean anything. All you're doing here is guessing, yet saying it in such a manner that it could be misconstrued as something factual. I believe that this is your intention, and it is very evil.

"The point I'm making is that some people view the left as "progressive" but in reality they are just as much about power, control, and domination as the right."

You put yourself in the middle of this war of left v. right, but all that's really happening is it is giving you an excuse to polarize people into one of two groups - the one you like or the one you hate. Even though many people tend to lie somewhere in the middle of the left/right spectrum, they get shoehorned into a hardline grouping by people like you.

Like I said already, "Do yourself a favor and don't blur the discussion by slipping in false associations. You're being very deceitful, and for what? To get your point across? If your point had any merit, it would stand on its own and you wouldn't have to sneak it into the discussion."

"By the way, you said "JeanMarc lives a very sheltered life. He doesn't know any better. It's just a shame closed minds and closed mouths aren't a package deal."

And then you yell about false associations? Talk about hypocrisy."

My remarks were conclusive based on his inability to directly answer questions that challenged his assertions, as well as the content of his assertions. I attempted to engage in direct, open, honest discussion, and he was unable. His admitted prejudices underlie a vast ignorance.

"Most leftists feel entitled to preferential treatment. It doesn't even surprise me anymore to see people like Anon11 spouting off generalizations and assumptions about people while berating them for supposedly making generalizations about others."

My only personal remark was that JM was sheltered, and that was after reading everything he had to say (and all the things he didn't say). Want to see what a generalization? I'm not even a "leftist". I don't even group people arbitrarily! What a concept.

"The leftists care about being politically correct more than anything else. "Progressive" is the new name for communism. So many dopes have been duped into thinking they are part of something new, when it is the same old marxist communism, and they are the same old useful idiots."

Safety nets are a social responsibility. It's being proactive towards societal failure rather than reactive. It does need limitations to insure minimal abuse, but to insinuate that anyone that supports the notion is a communist, is pretty dumb. Again, I'm not even a "leftist"... so lol @ you.

sdreefer you said a few things that caught my attention. First, you said retirement investing is a sham. How exactly is retirement investing a sham? Do you have a 401k? Do you contribute 10% of your income to it? If you do that, and work for 40 years, you will have a lot of money for retirement.

Then, you said people are being gouged by banks and credit cards. How, exactly, does a bank or credit card gouge someone? Do they force people to buy things they cannot afford with their credit card and pay high interest on their balance? No. People choose to do this, they gouge themselves. Sorry, it is not the banks fault if people make stupid financial decisions.

Unfortunately a lot of people like to lay around playing the victim and blame everyone but themselves for their problems.

Well lets be real retirement investing is a sham to make wall street wealthier. So social security is necessary to sustain most people who have been priced out of retirement from a lifetime of being gouged by banks and credit cards. The muddle class has been decimated by fuel and home prices. There isnt enough left at the end of the month anymore.